I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

During one of the 2011 GOP presidential debates sponsored by CNN, Mitt Romney argued that the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be disbanded and replaced by handing over the responsibility to the states to deal with their own emergencies.

Here’s what the Republican candidate had to say when asked whether FEMA should be shut down:

“Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?”

When moderator, John King, responded “Including disaster relief, though?”, Mitt Romney had this to say—

“We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids.It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.

While it’s swell that Governor Romney is concerned about the future of our kids, at this very moment —as the densely populated Northeastern section of the USA is experiencing a catastrophic disaster at a result of Hurricane Sandy—I can tell you that millions of people in the line of this extraordinary and unprecedented storm are also very much concerned for their children. However, these folks do not have the luxury today of worrying about the future of their kids. The concern these people are experiencing is today..right now…immediate…and very, very real.

For these people, the need for FEMA is neither political nor abstract.

So, wouldn’t you imagine that the Governor might want to respond accordingly?

Not so much. When given the opportunity to back off the position earlier today, Gov. Romney remained resolute in his commitment to scrap FEMA.

Suddenly, however, it turns out that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie—an ardent supporter and surrogate for Governor Romney who has backed the candidate’s rhetoric at every opportunity—sees considerably more value in the federal emergency agency now that his own state is ground zero for this disaster.

Indeed, Christie has, today, gone on record making it very clear that he not only wants FEMA aid, he wants it now and he is in no mood to see New Jersey residents get caught in the political cross-fire as Republicans in Congress look to find offsetting budget cuts to pay for the huge amount of aid that FEMA will be expected to provide in the face of what looks to be a $100 billion dollar financial catastrophe.

““Nobody was asking about offsetting budget cuts in Joplin,” Christie said, referring to the tornado-ravaged town in Missouri town, “and I don’t want to hear about the fact that offsetting budget cuts have to come first before New Jersey citizens are taken care of.”

Actually, Governor Christie has this wrong as his fellow Republican, House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor—a man who never met a disaster that he much cared about because he has never met one where his own constituents were in serious distress—required offsets before he would agree to help out the stricken people of Joplin, Missouri.

But Christie was just getting wound up—and we all know how it goes when Chris Christie gets wound up.

Resp0nding to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s latest statement that he is not interested in FEMA helping unless and until offsets can be located, Christie had this to add—

“You want to figure out budget cuts, that’s fine,” Christie said. “You’re going to turn it into a fiasco like that debt-limit thing where you’re fighting with each other for eight or nine weeks and you expect the citizens of my state to wait? They’re not gonna wait, and I’m going to fight to make sure that they don’t.”

Gov. Christie noted that this was not a partisan issue. To further drive home the point, he introduced New Jersey Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg to add his own two cents on the subject.

“We are gonna fight like hell against those who want to cut back on FEMA”s funding,” the Senator said. “We cannot do this without lots of money.”

Indeed, so concerned is Governor Christies that the feds be there for him now that he needs them, he went so far as to compliment President Obama yesterday saying, ““I appreciated the president’s outreach today in making sure that we know he’s watching this and is concerned about the health and welfare and safety of the people of the state of New Jersey.”

Isn’t it amazing how smaller government becomes far less desirable, even to Governor Christie, when the catastrophe at hand is your own?

UPDATE: Governor Romney has issued a statement where he now tries to have it both ways. What a surprise. Check this out -

“Gov. Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions,” Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said in a statement. “As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA,” he added.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

The National Guard is funded by tax money. Private contractors can be funded by tax money, also and we would not need to pay thousands of bureaucrats. If a private charity had the overhead our government does, it would be labeled a scam.

Private companies have those things called “office staff” too. And usually their senior management and executives are paid WAY more than their counterpats in the Federal Services to the tune of millions of dollars. “Privatized = more efficient” is a myth. Just make changes to the existing governemnt office so that it runs more cheaply and efficiently.

Wow. Talk about cutting and pasting headlines and slapping down useless numbers:

Your so-called “evidence” is an article from 2010 about 2008 pay numbers.

#1. That’s almost 5 years out of date. March 2008 was before the major economic recession which has seen billions vanish from the economy, wages tumble, and millions of Americans lose their jobs from all walks of life. There’s no reason to believe the numbers are still remotely accurate. Show me the 2012 numbers then we’ll talk.

#2. The study may have showed that at the time 80% of Federal employees earned slightly higher wages but the types of jobs with higher-than-average wages were:

All of them relatively low-wage front-line staff when compared to executives earning millions of dollars per year at most major corporations. A profession, you will note which does NOT appear on the list.

#3. The article contains its own criticisms of the comparison:

“‘When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector,’ she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work.

Office of Personnel Management spokeswoman Sedelta Verble, says higher pay also reflects the longevity and older age of federal workers.”

#4. Did you even READ the article before posting it? If not, don’t bother to reply.

Obviously, it would not be a good idea to disband FEMA today. If Romney is elected and FEMA is disbanded (clearly not overnight because FEMA is part of DHS and backed by Congress; the president does not get to disband government agencies without following protocol), obviously state and local agencies would take up the slack left by the government agency.

Today, Obama keeps promising that “they” will cut through the red tape so FEMA can get help where it is needed. If FEMA wasn’t in charge, and other agencies had been preparing since last year (by taking charge), those other agencies would now be prepared to do what the federal agency has never done very well. Red tape would not be even a minor concern. Now, it is the only concern. Big government is slow (and very expensive), as we have seen. Let us not forget the last ten emergency relief efforts over which FEMA took charge.

@Sedgwick: Wow. Obviously you missed the entire point. The states cannot AFFORD it. Which part of that don’t you get? I recently read of a small town whose entire water treatment plant was destroyed. There is no way this small town can afford to replace it.

And the federal government agency, in this case FEMA, is as efficient and cost-effective as the people running it. There is NO doubt that FEMA under Brown, back in 2005 when Katrina occurred, was a shambles. And there is no doubt whatsoever that FEMA is well run now with a new director, and under Pres. Obama’s oversight. It performed in stellar fashion during Irene, several other disasters/tornadoes etc., and now with Sandy.

I live in the Midwest, where hurricanes are the least of our problems (directly, at least)… and yet, we will be helping to foot the bill for this $100bn+ disaster– just like the last one (Katrina). How about we stop building dense residential/business areas in the most dangerous places imaginable? We keep replacing coastal communities like we have no idea they can be immediately and devastatingly destroyed. Perhaps without the backing of an agency like FEMA, we can start logically planning communities instead of ignoring nature and acting as though we are somehow above it or that we can control it.